President’s State of the Union Address Faith Based Initiative Debate

Some seven or eight years ago, the President proposed the Community Solutions Act (aka, the Faith Based Initiative or “Charitable Choice”), under which the government would be allowed to make direct grants to nonprofit religious organizations to assist them in their secular, social welfare activities.  In last night’s State of the Union address, President Bush sought to reinvigorate the effort by specifically extolling the Congress to pass the Faith Based Initiative.  Here is the President’s brief mention of the issue:

In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need. Over the past seven years, more of our fellow citizens have discovered that the pursuit of happiness leads to the path of service. Americans have volunteered in record numbers. Charitable donations are higher than ever. Faith-based groups are bringing hope to pockets of despair, with newfound support from the federal government. And to help guarantee equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds, I ask you to permanently extend Charitable Choice.

The Charitable Choice provisions of current law are today rather limited.  See here for the HHS regulations pertaining to religious organization’s receipt of federal funding.  The whole idea seems a worthwhile effort even if, as noted by Justice Douglas’ dissent in Walz v. Commissioner, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) there is simply no way to separate the religious and secular activities of religious organizations.  The reason I think it is nevertheless ok, is that so long as grants and direct subsidies for secular activities are dolled out in a non-discriminatory fashion, (a large order, I readily admit, but not impossible to achieve) there will be no danger of government “establishing” religion.  In addition, there is also little danger of government regulating or entangling itself in religion because those religious organizations that want nothing to do with government need not apply for government grants.  For more on the debate, see today’s op-ed piece in the New York Times.  For more pros and cons on the 2001 version of the Faith Based Solutions Act, see here and here and here. 

dkj